About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
this country, religious up and down this country who believe that the obama administration rightly has leveled a direct attack on their ability to be catholic. that is not going to pass unnoticed in states like ohio, michigan, pennsylvania where the catholic vote is huge and motivated and not happy with president obama. secondly, that chick-fil-a story , this has just begun to roll out, but everyone already knows about it. .. >> the third story i asked about was the 1.5% gdp growth, the horrible growth number, and, again, less than half a percent. the chick-fil-a story was just a day ole. everybody heard about chick-fil-a. it was one of those stories that moves by social media, by e-mail, by tfn, and conversation about the church peat owe, in a group like this, or your friends, and it outrages people. it outrages even supporters of same-sex marriage. it outrages, as i had on the radio show today, gay people. they don't want people bullied over their religious faith, and when rahm tries to beat up the keys of chick-fil-a or the mayor of boston or san fransisco, those are democrat friends of the
against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision that stunned many people, but no one more than me, john roberts reached for a subsidiary argument that had only been upended, had only been mentioned in passing in both the supreme court and even the lower courts and he said the individual mandate was a permissible use of taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause, and thus the law would be upheld. subquestion finally anticipate why, why did roberts do that? and i think there were three main reasons. one is, i think you have to take his opinion at face value. eastham thought it was a legitimate use of the taxing power. i think the second and th
be the point that the obama administration defends the defense of marriage act and president romney will defend the constitutionality, but it doesn't seem that social conservative question has a lot of allotted salience in some unlike a presidential debate. so i think other than health care i see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here is why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans during the 90s for a while were seen some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls. don't do it anymore and the democrats, john kerry and the early 90s, joe lieberman in the early 90s and others said maybe it is time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that is all gone. i've spoken to republican politicians, why is that? the answer is we get so if we ever raise their voices against affirmative action it is just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. part of it ironically was an incredibly bitter campaign in calif
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
and those are two big issues that the obama administration have focused on for failing, for fixing failing schools and that will lead to a focus on -- and how to improve their teacher workforce. the romney campaign has signaled interest in improving schools as well through a different avenue by promoting more choice and vouchers for parents but neither side i would argue is recognizing that those reforms, that those are ever put in place, will be far less successful with children are given a poor foundation in the first place. if kids are growing up in impoverished conditions and have little access to the rich curiosity driven conversations we are talking about that they need in those younger years, that those reforms are not going to go anywhere or amount to anything until we start getting serious about the topics we are talking about today. .. wouldn't be smarter to be using those investments to be kind of front loading making sure that we are setting these children not to succeed in the first place. the third 1i want to mention is family values strengthening family life. this is an issu
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
obama has accused china of exports. as the administration done enough to protect business against unfair trade practices from china? >> they can do more. i am glad they jumped in on the issue about the tires and the issue about the cards. i am concerned about new hampshire losing 16,000 jobs and i think congressman bass is on record with the special trade status for china that is very threatening. dirksen senate office build >> the trade vote is one that is over a decade ago and it is important because it assures the great success china plays by our rules and not the other way around but i do agree such issues as currency debate ought to be resolved and i condemn this administration of doing virtually nothing proactive to deal with the issue of china competition. >> the postal service is losing $50 million a day and proposed cutting saturday service. bass: i break with my republican colleagues. a miscalculation by the office of personnel management on their retirement contribution but once you take that issue and put it aside which they should do we still have a postal service running at
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8